In my defence.
My reasons have remained the same. Dakarian has misunderstood several things, which leads to his claims of reason changing.
I will now indicate the reason for the post, which is the same reason I have been trying to get across for a while.
This is all correct:
The post that started the whole mess was soft enough:Anyway old Apostolic Nihilist holds my vote for now on account of... stuff. I consider his behaviour sufficiently odd that I consider the likelyhood that he is scum higher than any other player.
My reponse is to pressure vote him to first ask why he agreed to Nihilist then thought him scummy. He answered the first part but I mostly wanted the second part: what is the 'stuff' he's referring to.
In response, I get this:
MrPerson stop lurking it is annoying!
For that matter, everybody, stop lurking, it is annoying!
Anyway. Apostolic Nihilist hasn't really done anything that is obviously scummy. But from the way his posts read and the actions he has made I feel that he is acting in a way unfamiliar to him. Of course, in mafia, we all act, all the time, but seeing as we spend less time as mafia and have more need to act, our acting as mafia is less refined. It is not a solid accusation. However, it is enough that, given no better targets, I consider him a worthwhile lynch.
Now then.
Anyway old Apostolic Nihilist holds my vote for now on account of... stuff. I consider his behaviour sufficiently odd that I consider the likelyhood that he is scum higher than any other player.
My reason for making this post was to indicate my opinion, and my opinion was that AN was more scummy than anyone else at that time. Yes, had we had to decide who to lynch right then I would have said AN. I thought that sharing my opinion with people would help ease and encourage conversation. Because, you know, that's what you do. When there's nothing to say, you still say something, so that more things to say will spawn from it.
Then this post
You agree with Nihilst's reasoning but you find him scummy on....stuff.
Unvote, Vote Nuke9.13
No really.. explain yourself.
Well, I thought the emphasis was on 'you agree with nihilst's reasoning but you find him scummy' rather than 'on...stuff'
So, what, all scum lie all the time and never makes a single rational statement?
Come on.
"I agree with Apostolic Nihilist."
Was not what I said
I said:
"I still agree with Apostolic Nihilist that we should have left him for the scum to NK, but whatever."
Thus this response.
the emphasis was on the second half..
What's your reasoning for thinking he's acting scummy?
Fair enough.
MrPerson stop lurking it is annoying!
For that matter, everybody, stop lurking, it is annoying!
Anyway. Apostolic Nihilist hasn't really done anything that is obviously scummy. But from the way his posts read and the actions he has made I feel that he is acting in a way unfamiliar to him. Of course, in mafia, we all act, all the time, but seeing as we spend less time as mafia and have more need to act, our acting as mafia is less refined. It is not a solid accusation. However, it is enough that, given no better targets, I consider him a worthwhile lynch.
And then the fated post.
Firstly
MrPerson was lurking. Voting for lurkers can get them to post again. Therefore it is 'Good' to vote for lurkers. As it was I had very little reason to vote for AN, so I considered MrPerson a 'Better' 'target' than AN.
Secondly, I responded to Dakarian. It was explaining to dakarian my reasoning behind a vote I had made previously, so that dakarian could understand why I voted for AN.
This is the reason for this post and my actions.
The various reasons that dakarian claims I have held are all reflections of this, as I will now indicate:
His reasons change when pressured. He voted you to wake up a lurker..
Yes, that is why I voted MrPerson, as indicated
No he felt Person was scummier than AN:
Once again, you must agree, that given a slightly scummy person, and someone scummier still, it is best to vote for the scummiest?
I can understand the confusion here. However;
But wait.. it's not 'scumminess' it's 'goodtargetness'
Substitute scumminess in my quote with goodtargetness
Right. Let us do what I suggested.
Once again, you must agree, that given a slightly good target, and a better target, it is best to vote for the best target?
So no, I did not consider MrPerson scummier, I considered him a better target than AN.
Which now makes him sound like he's after 'good targets' rather than 'scum'.
It should be self-evident that scum are good targets. But whatever.
(1)He stated that Nihilist would make a good lynch if no one else looks better (the 'slightly scummy' mess) Yes
(2).. then it's "if we had to stop right now I believe he should die" This is the same thing. If we were to stop right then (when I made my AN vote, no one would look more scummy.
(3)... then he "had no case against Nihilist and was just defending himself" This refers to the end of post 3, in which I was, yes, defending myself against dakarian. By means of explaining my reasoning.
(4)... then it's "he would've chosen AN again..for goodtargetness, not scummyness" Well, no, I never said that. I did say that, at the time of post 3, had we had to stop right then, I would have voted for AN. The reason being reason 1 here.
...now it's
I was indicating that I was merely putting down my vote in favour of his death, rather than choosing him as the person to die.
Which is a quote in reply to a quote of a quote, so not very reliable for anything. As it happens, the vote to which I am referring is post one. I think this was a response to the accusation that I was being all like: "someone needs to die, oh well, you'll do", which suggests I control who dies. It was not a reason for my actions, it was an explanation of what my action was.
Was supposed to be ignored by the town?
As in, was the town not meant to go, hmmn, you have a point there, we should lynch AN
Yes. It was an indication of my own motivation. Pre defence. Open flow of opinions.
It was all just babble.
It was not babble, it was, and I quote from the quote he was talking about 'an indication of my own motivation', pre defence (actually just normal defence), and more open flow of opinions. Which it was and have always claimed it was
If anyone can still find a situation where I have one reason that contradicts another reason for anything, please do tell.
I read through that and it does seem he is backtracking. And the fact that he is acting a bit strange with the scummy business does seem....well, scummy. Unvote Vote Nuke. I agree with dakarian's points. he does seem to be a bit active lurking, although more active than myself.
Clarify is spelled with an a, not an "e", by the way.
What what
Active lurking is posting posts with no content. I believe my posts had content. You have yet to seriously participate in this game.
Sorry, jeez.
'Sorry, jeez'? Am I meant to read this as sarcasm, the actual meaning being: 'Man, you are way exaggerating, the thing you want me to apologize for is totally not so bad'
Because it is bad. Active lurking,
which you are totally doing, is bad.
You are not playing the game. You are either scum trying to avoid attention, or stupid town who is giving the scum a lower standard to adhere to. And now you are
trivialising it. I am already voting for you, but if I wasn't, I totally would, just for that.
How is it not enough that I think its true of his points? Is it because I am third person voting him and I should NOT go with what I think Person?
You should vote in the manner that you like but seeing as I am not scum I would like to know which bits of dakarians argument in particular you are convinced by so that I can show you why it is wrong. Just voting for someone saying 'myeah I sort of agree with this' is slightly better than just voting for them without saying anything, but not much.
Also, kind of a weak thing to do, but I fear that it may be partly true: OMGUS.
Author
Topic: Color Mafia (Game Over! Town Wins!) (Read 41234 times)